Studies in Conservation ISSN: 0039-3630 (Print) 2047-0584 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ysic20 Conserving a boundary: The conservation and management of a Berlin Wall mural Kiernan Graves & Katey Corda To cite this article: Kiernan Graves & Katey Corda (2016) Conserving a boundary: The conservation and management of a Berlin Wall mural, Studies in Conservation, 61:sup2, 61-66, DOI: 10.1080/00393630.2016.1190996 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00393630.2016.1190996 Published online: 19 Sep 2016. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 181 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ysic20 Download by: [Katey Corda] Date: 14 August 2017, At: 14:27 Conserving a boundary: The conservation and management of a Berlin Wall mural Kiernan Graves1, Katey Corda2 1Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2Private Practice, Washington, DC, USA In 1991, five segments of the Berlin Wall, first painted by renowned contemporary artists Thierry Noir and Kiddy Citny, were bought at auction, transported to the USA, and placed in an outdoor environment that severely advanced the deterioration of the painted surface and reinforced concrete substrate. This paper discusses aspects of the conservation treatment and management plan for these painted segments of the Berlin Wall. The strategy and criteria for the conservation program were defined by a multidisciplinary team that comprised conservators, concrete specialists, and engineers; the deliberations of this team also led to an appropriate treatment and management plan. The choice to intervene at a minimal level meant treatment was restricted to stabilization rather than restoration or reconstruction of deteriorated areas. Additionally, the team decided to reinstall the pieces indoors to reduce future deterioration. Keywords: Berlin Wall, Conservation, Graffiti, Reinforced concrete, Wall paintings, Contemporary art Introduction concern was whether altering the presentation of the In the early 1990s, five vibrantly painted sections of Wall to increase longevity would change its value or the Berlin Wall (designated as segments 92–96) were public perception. Finally, the discrepancies between purchased at auction by a private collector, shipped the conservation ethos and treatment approaches to the USA, and installed in midtown Manhattan, that are applied to a work of fine art and a fragment New York, where they graced the small courtyard of of a built heritage structure that is now considered a skyscraper on Madison Avenue (Fig. 1). an artifact with exceptionally strong historical and cul- The segments were intentionally placed in a location tural associations, had to be navigated. accessible to the public and, with aesthetics in mind, positioned directly in front of an urban waterfall. Background and significance Water fell directly on the foot, spraying the rear and The Berlin Wall was the perilous1 and imposing creating a humid atmosphere around the base barrier dividing east and west post-war Berlin. The (Fig. 2). Wetting and drying cycles induced by the first incarnation of the wall was erected practically ’ Downloaded by [Katey Corda] at 14:27 14 August 2017 water feature, in conjunction with Manhattan s harsh overnight on 13 August 1961. It physically sequestered outdoor environment, led to severe deterioration of families and friends, separated people from their liveli- the mural; this included cracking and delamination hoods, and eliminated the population’s freedom of of the concrete support, corrosion of the internal movement and expression until the border was reo- rebar, and flaking and loss of the paint layers. In pened in November 1989. 2013, after a succession of large losses of the painted The five panels considered here are part of the substrate occurred, the need for conservation treat- ‘fourth- generation’ Berlin Wall construction, fabricated ment was recognized by the owner. and erected between 1975 and 1980 (Feversham & This paper discusses aspects of the conservation Schmidt, 1999). This phase of the Wall was constructed treatment and management plan in order to illustrate with poured concrete, reinforced with industrial quan- a number of key issues frequently encountered in the tities of internal steel rebar, and capped with sections conservation of contemporary outdoor art. During of sewage pipe spanning a minimum of three segments the program to stabilize and preserve the five to increase strength. Each segment is around 3.6 m high segments, the consulting team wrestled with issues and 1.2 m wide. Assembled rapidly and inexpensively, such as how to reconcile spontaneous artistic creation these panels were never intended to be an artist’s with the public’s demand for permanence. Another ‘canvas’. Instead this wall was constructed to intimidate 1The numbers of deaths that occurred as a result of people attempting to Correspondence to: Kiernan Graves, Getty Conservation Institute, Los cross the wall varies with source, with a range from 130 to 239 cited in the Angeles, CA, USA. Email: [email protected] literature. © The International Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works 2016 Received December 2015; revised paper accepted May 2016 DOI 10.1080/00393630.2016.1190996 Studies in Conservation 2016 VOL. 61 SUPPLEMENT 2 S2-61 Graves and Corda The conservation and management of a Berlin Wall mural Figure 1 An image of the segment installed in its original Manhattan location. The large red head and adjacent ‘film strip’ of monochrome heads was painted by Thierry Noir. Kiddy Citny painted the yellow head and small figure to its right. Image: © Cranmer Art Group, LLC, 2010. and control the population of the city in which it was uninterested in permanence, but is painting with the built. As a means to express public rejection of the hope that the works will be torn down. structure, the side of the wall facing West Berlin Both paintings are characteristic of the artists’ styles became a place for artistic and political expression in and subject matter, and as these works became icono- the early 1980s, often depicting political discontent. In graphic, the artists gained recognition. Over Noir and contrast, the side facing East Berlin was inaccessible Citny’s original paintings there are additional tags3 and and such expression was impossible. text-based graffiti by many others, applied using a vast Downloaded by [Katey Corda] at 14:27 14 August 2017 Segments 92–96 were originally located along range of aerosol paints, differing in material composition, Waldemarstraße and were first painted using aerosol quality, and brand. The cultural significance of these spray paint sometime between 1984 and 1986 paintings lies both in their place in the history of contem- (Anderhub, 1985; Kudas & Nungesser, 1990) by con- porary street art and their association with the historically temporary artists Thierry Noir and Kiddy Citny, who important Berlin Wall. They also have symbolic value, spearheaded the movement to cover the wall in art.2 imparted by their role in the fight against oppression The artists’ intent was to voice protest by making a and political control. This significance and value is felt large, colorful mark on a major symbol of the Cold not only by those individuals who remember the wall War. The narrative behind the creation of these when it still stood, but also by those who are directly or works is different from other unsanctioned murals indirectly affected by similarly divisive walls that still on concrete substrates. Noir states that he wanted to stand. Although the structure has been removed from its ‘transform it, make it ridiculous, and help destroy it’ original context, the power of the imagery is immediately (StreetArtLondon, 2013). There are few precedents apparent. For the conservation of Segments 92–96, these where a street artist wishes the structure on which he issues had implications that affected stabilization and or she paints to be demolished. Not only is the artist presentation decisions. Each of the values was assessed during the decision-making process, as it was realized that privileging any one would impact authenticity and 2Thierry Noir is now recognized as the first artist to paint large-scale murals understanding. on the Berlin Wall (StreetArtLondon, 2013). Evidence for the date of the application of the paintings on the wall also comes from Wim Wender’s 1987 film Wings of Desire. 3A tag is commonly defined as a graffiti writers’ unique signature. S2-62 Studies in Conservation 2016 VOL. 61 SUPPLEMENT 2 Graves and Corda The conservation and management of a Berlin Wall mural imminent danger of loss. Water migration and associ- ated salt activity, in combination with the fluctuating ambient environment, caused widespread tenting, lifting, flaking, and loss of the paint layers. Years of dirt, pollution, and other urban grime were accumulat- ing on the surface of the painting. Finally, the public’s unmediated interaction with the mural was resulting in vandalism and mechanical damage, particularly towards its base where tourists often sat to be photo- graphed with the wall. Ultimately, conservation treatment was instigated as a result of two events. First, in early 2013, a large loss occurred in the mural where an internal rebar had corroded and expanded so appreciably that a large piece of painted substrate detached (Fig. 3). This was the second such known incident, but in this case the detached piece was recovered. Second, on 9–10 August 2014, in a well-orchestrated act of vandalism, the words ‘IT’S LIKE TALKIN TO A WALL’ were spray painted through a stencil across the mural’s surface in Arabic, English, and Hebrew (Fig. 4). Although this site offers greater security than most other outdoor murals, the mural’s accessibility was one factor enabling the defa- cement and while this was the most significant inci- dent of vandalism to date, it was not the first.